Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Interviewer (Me):  Richard, no question the government is not totally
    on the up and up on military issues.  I firmly believe for example,
    that FDR was responsible for getting the US involved in WW1.  As the
    Secretary of Defense, he knew that loading the Lusitania with military
    equipment was an act of war.  Aside from all of this, what is your
    conception of upholding the Constitutional responsibilities of a strong
    defense?
    
    -Jack

    Eagerly awaiting Richard's reply....just as soon as he makes bail!!

      Richard,
    
        Neat!  In reply to .1, I think that even the Constitution
        takes a back seat to what God wants to accomplish.  I'm not
        advocating getting rid of the Constitution, I'm just saying 
        that if we had the faith of Gideon, a bugle and lantern would
        be plenty sufficient armaments against a much larger foe with
        nuclear warheads.  I also believe that God worked with what He
        had; that is He allowed Israel to use weapons, but if their 
        faith was greater, He would have accomplished the same victories
        had they not used any weapons at all.  Sort of like using Rahab
        the harlot who resorted to lying (which is sin, but God winked at
        her ignorance...she was accountable for what she knew and not
        what she didn't know).      
    
                                                      Tony

    No question that God can wave his hands and wipe out his enemies.  See
    the Battle of Armegeddon as proof.  As you are aware Tony, we live in 
    pretty much a secular humanist society; having great faith in
    ourselves.  I'm afraid that the truly Godly way to implement faith here
    is a high improbability under current circumstances.  Like Israel,
    America would have to be completely humbled...to the point where God is
    the absolute only answer.  We saw how this happened to Israel in the
    book of Judges.  The Edomites destroyed Israels crops like locusts,
    leaving them desolate and without hope.  
    
    When reading Richards .1, I was reminded how Hezekiah, a Godly king of
    Israel made the foolish mistake of giving the Babylonian emmissaries a 
    guided tour of his treasuries.  In essence, he flirted with the enemy
    under false pretenses and Israel later paid dearly for this.  As long
    as sin is present, human nature, even so called good human nature is an
    unreliable source of comfort for most.  
    
    Under the current circumstances, I have to go by the prescedent that
    fear is an international language.  As long as the threat of
    retaliation exists, peace will abound for a longer period of time.  
    The fear of retaliation has to be used against other nations who don't
    believe in the sovereignty of their neighbors.  
    
    Had North Korea prevailed in the 50's, a huge slaughter would have
    taken place in Japan.  Had we not bloodied the nose of Vietnam,
    Communism would have been widespread in Southeast Asia, Including the
    Philippeans.  Kuwait would be gone and Saudi Arabia would most likely
    be at war this very day, and so would we.  Without the ABomb dropped on
    Hiroshima, the war in the Pacific would have dragged on longer and many
    more would have died.  Furthermore, my dad was on a suicide mission
    that very week to Okanawa so I wouldn't be here to grace you all with
    my presence!!
    
    -Jack

    It's not so much "Be at peace or I'll kill you". 
    
    I was watching the discovery channel last month and saw a very
    interesting show on snakes.  The rattler rattles his tail as a warning
    to potential predators that he does not wish to be bothered.  Rattlers
    instinctively do not wish for confrontation and I believe that was
    God's way of helping the rattler provide this protection for himself.
    There is nothing ungodly about that.
    
    When the US or any other country is strictly in a defensive posture,
    think of them as a very large rattler.  There is nothing wrong with
    firing shots over the bow and nothing ungodly about heeding a warning!
    
    -Jack

re: Note 930.6 by Jack AIMHI::JMARTIN 

>    When the US or any other country is strictly in a defensive posture,
>    think of them as a very large rattler.  There is nothing wrong with
>    firing shots over the bow and nothing ungodly about heeding a warning!
    
Jack, interesting node name you've got there!  Alas I think the U.S as a
nation is too eager to aim low.  Who wants to wait for mere sanctions to 
take effect?  Especially since they don't make for interesting news filming. 

Peace,

Jim

    Cuba is the pinnacle of proof that sanctions do not work.  Sanctions
    allow the elitist to continue living on cavear while the poor and
    middle class live in abject poverty.  Take a look at what's going on in
    Miami.  Even the once wealthy of Cuba are fleeing in boats and Russian
    made airfighters.  
    
    Had we put sanctions on Iraq, Saddam would still be enjoying the fruits
    of his new real estate, and by the way, thousands of Kuwaitis alive
    today would be dead.  You are trying to apply Godly applications 
    to ungodly governments.  Won't work!!
    
    -Jack

      One other thought I have is that when we speak of the United
      States, I think we speak of a part of the 'world' of which
      "ye are not of the world."
    
      In other words, it makes zero sense to speak of what the United
      States should do from the perspective that it is a Godly nation.
      It is part of the world and has been for a long long time.
    
      Jack, I think the only forum for the 'tack' you are subscribing
      to for the United States is that the United States is Godless and
      thus must resort to its godless means (lack of faith) in order to
      arrive at what it wants.
    
      In short: the U.S. wants the most and the biggest bombs.  God will
      demonstrate His salvation when some 'nation' has no strength within
      itself (save faith) lies between Egypt and the Red Sea, and is
      finally ready to raise its arms as did Moses and declare to the 
      entire world: "Come see the salvation of the Lord!!!"
    
      And that group will NOT be the United States.  The US will be a part
      of that group's last day adversary.
    
                                                      Tony

    Excellent analogy regarding the Red Sea.  This opens another question
    however.
    
    How important is nationalism?  The US still is the home of many
    believers and many believers have served in our armed forces.  They
    believe in the sovereignty of the US and have fought for it.
    Are the campaigns fought over the last 200 years to be scorned at and
    looked upon as evil?  I think not!
    
    -Jack
    

re Note 930.8 by AIMHI::JMARTIN:

>     Cuba is the pinnacle of proof that sanctions do not work.  Sanctions
>     allow the elitist to continue living on cavear while the poor and
>     middle class live in abject poverty.  

        It's certainly true that sanctions didn't result in the
        overthrow of Castro.

        In fact the sanctions undoubtedly contributed to the severity
        of the abject poverty in Cuba.

        But the right course wouldn't have been armed intervention
        instead of sanctions.  The right course would have been no
        intervention and no sanctions.

        What right did we have to try to overthrow Castro?


>     Had we put sanctions on Iraq, Saddam would still be enjoying the fruits
>     of his new real estate, and by the way, thousands of Kuwaitis alive
>     today would be dead.  You are trying to apply Godly applications 
>     to ungodly governments.  Won't work!!
  
        You're right, of course.  Christianity is impossibly and
        impractically godly.  Anyone who tried to live as Jesus lived
        would be lucky to see his or her 33rd birthday!  There truly
        is no earthly security in the cross!

        Bob

    Okay, so having said this, I am still alittle confused as to Richards
    mission here.  Is it to protest improper use of the military or is
    there opposition to the military in general?  Is there a believe in
    unilateral disarmament?  If so, then peace is the very last thing it
    will accomplish!
    
    -Jack

re: Note 930.6 by Jack

>    It's not so much "Be at peace or I'll kill you". 

How about "do what we say or we'll bomb you back to the stone age".

That's something I heard a lot during the Gulf war.

Peace,

Jim

 > What right did we have to try to overthrow Castro?

 Well, how about this ...

 What if, in the middle of the night, you wake up to see your next door
 neighbor outside your window with a shot gun pointed at your head?
 You get a bigger gun and scare him off. Would you ever trust him again?
 and lets say he continually makes aggressive gestures and talks it up
 around the neighborhood that he's "gonna get ya".

 Castro-Kruschev-JFK How soon we forget!

 Hank

re Note 930.14 by DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR:

>  What if, in the middle of the night, you wake up to see your next door
>  neighbor outside your window with a shot gun pointed at your head?
>  You get a bigger gun and scare him off. Would you ever trust him again?
>  and lets say he continually makes aggressive gestures and talks it up
>  around the neighborhood that he's "gonna get ya".

        There's a big difference between distrust and measures that
        wreak general havoc on a population.  Of course you don't
        trust him.  But you don't seek vengeance perpetually, either.


>  Castro-Kruschev-JFK How soon we forget!
  
        I remember very vividly, and it was a long, long time ago.

        Nevertheless we insist on measures that make the poor of the
        country suffer for decades after the threat is resolved.

        Bob

      In every single war the US has ever undertaken, a more succesful
      tactic would have been to march into battle with bugle and lantern
      in hand.  The US blew it.  I have blown it.  We have all blown it.
      God still looks for that group which finally rests perfectly in
      Christ (Heb. 4).  
    
      So Jack, to answer your question, given the faithlessness of America,
      I suppose they did the right thing in most of the wars.  But, in
      every case, there has always been a better way.  Faith was just
      lacking and so they weren't up to doing it.
    
                                                     Tony

    "Saul has killed his thousands and David his tens of thousands."  God
    sent those ancient Kings in to battle carrying the full armour,
    including sword.  I do see your point though.  Paul and company used
    the full armour of God....Faith, righteousness, the word...and they
    were accused of turning the world upside down!!  I get emotional over
    the incident where Stephen was stoned to death.  Not so much because of
    his actual death, but because the testimony he gave and the words he
    used haunted Paul for the rest of his life.  I rejoice in the fact that
    they are rejoicing in eternal life together!!  However, I acknowledge
    also that there was a heavy price to pay.
    
    Re: Iraq.
    
    Let's face it, oil supply is of great national interest.  Our economy
    is heavily based on the availability of oil and other fuels.  I submit
    to you that Husseins attack of Kuwait had nothing to do with
    compassion; it was strictly a move toward guarding national interest.  
    Hussein broke into your house if you will and he was given ample
    warning as to the consequences of his actions.  He alone is responsible 
    for the outcome of events during the Persian Gulf War...nobody else. 
    He victimized his own people through his free will.
    
    -Jack  
    
    

 
  well...  I guess I have weak faith   
  
  Our Heavenly Father doesn't approve of war, but he appears to allow it,
  knowing that we will fight and die to protect territory and loved ones
  no matter what He would say.

  This is at a national level, which is an extension of the individual level.

  I for or one will defend my family with an unchrist-like array of responses
  to the victimizer until one of us is incapacitated. It is easy to claim
  "faith" until you are in a life threatening situation, then ones (or I 
  should say MY "animal instincts",  namely the will to survive, usually 
  overrides any humanitarian idealogy I might have for my fellow man.

  I will and have done the same for my country.

  To be sure, America has sinned some bad sins (against Red and Black humanity
  in particular). Our Father forgives nations as well as individuals.
  If our belief system will not allow us to fight (individually or nationally)
  you have that right and I repect your exercise of that right. 
 
  Most of us are here because other Americans gave there lives for us.
  
  Hank

      Hi Hank,
    
        I don't know what I would do.  I just believe that when faith
        is perfected, there will be a better way.  I don't know that
        better way because my faith is so weak as well.
    
        I believe that God takes people where they are at.  As an example,
        if Rahab the harlot had perfect faith, somehow she would have
        delivered the spies without needing to lie.  Likewise, somehow
        we could deliver our loved ones without resorting to killing,
        weapons, whatever.
    
        But, let me make myself perfectly clear.  The faith I am talking
        about is one I do not now have.  Mine is much more as is yours
        and in my weak faith, I suspect I would respond to certain
        situations by wanting to blow someone's head off!!!
    
                                                  Tony

    I agree that the sacrifices of our fathers past should not be scorned
    upon.  I believe in responsible nationalism and the right to a 
    sovereign nation.  I also have no compassion nor do I value individuals
    who burn the flag or bring the ghastly cultures they fled from upon us.
    That is something we didn't ask for!!
    
    -Jack

    re Note 930.6 by AIMHI::JMARTIN

    > The rattler rattles his tail as a warning to potential predators that
    > he does not wish to be bothered.

    You justify US militarism and arms proliferation by comparing us to
    rattle snakes. I find this wickedly humorous...

Eric

re Note 930.0 by POWDML::FLANAGAN:

        Any word from Richard?


        Regarding Richard's response:

> 	In a way, it's ironic.  We see so plainly that the tragic and
> deplorable events of Rwanda are insane and evil.  Yet, in the U.S., we
> stand ready and able to annihilate any adversary with no more conscience
> than that unleashed in Rwanda.  It is only our sophisticated technology that
> makes our martial mentality appear more civilized, more palatable.  It

        I don't believe that this is true.  I believe that our (US)
        leaders do indeed agonize over decisions to send our forces
        into battle.  I do believe that they are concerned about the
        non-Americans as well as the Americans that would be killed
        or wounded -- perhaps not equally so, but I don't believe
        that they are callous and value non-American lives not at
        all.

        Sometimes they engage in war *because* they value the
        non-American lives.  Sadly, sometimes the decision is not
        made to intervene to save others.

        However, very often the equation comes out that the
        non-American lives are not worth as much as American
        interests.  Of this we must repent.

        Bob

    RE Note 930.17 by AIMHI::JMARTIN


    > Our economy is heavily based on the availability of oil and other
    > fuels.

    And yet we have imposed an oil embargo on Iraq since the war and what
    has happened to gasoline prices? Even with an added 4 cent per gallon
    federal tax, it's gone down. This war had nothing to do with our
    national interests, oil prices, or our continued ability to to consume
    obscene amount of petroleum. It had to do with oil industry business
    interests.

    Of all the world conflicts, past and present, you picked probably the
    worst one to demonstrate our military involvement for humanitarian
    reasons -- our God given military righteousness.
    
    Eric

    Eric:
    
    I never stated the Kumait war was for humanitarian purposes.  It was to
    protect national interests.  If you recall, I stated the Korean war was
    to keep North Korea from Japan, not only to protect South Korea. 
    Hussein would have gone after Saudi Arabia had we not intervened.  Then
    Eric, the story would be alot different for you!!
    
    My rattlesnake analogy didn't hit home, my fault.  I am pointing out
    that the rattlesnakes rattle is far from wicked.  It is a sober warning
    to all predators that the snake is a self preservationist.  You paint 
    this picture that any group of people who build arms are no good,  not
    the case.  It is true that America is the great manipulator in this
    world, I grant you that.  I also would say that our military might has
    kept much of the aggressive world at bay for the last fifty years.
    
    Eric, arms buildups collapsed the USSR and North Korea is on the verge
    of bankruptcy.  Cuba, no comment.  Aggressors are being put to rest
    because fear is an international language!!  A strong defense is not
    ungodly by any means.
    
    -Jack

    By the way Eric, I thought all proceeds of sold oil from Iraq are going
    towards war reparations!  I don't believe there is a total embargo.
    
    -Jack

    I have not heard any word from Richard.  
    
    Patricia

    Patricia:
    
    By the way, what do you think of the concept of breaking the law non-
    violently to make a political statement?  I happen to think at times
    it is necessary.  It is necessary for the abolitionists, MLK, RJC,
    (Richard Jones-Christie), How about auntie May who quietly lies down in 
    front of the stairs to an abortion clinic?
    
    -Jack
    

    Jack (in response to nearly every entry),
    
    	Try reading the Gospels and taking Jesus' words and actions as
    though he really meant was he said and did.  The Gospels are far more
    compelling than the Constitution of the United States of America.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Yes, I am out of the pokey.  It was an eye-opening 27 or so hours.
    I have a court appearance in August.
    
    The judge signed a bench release as I refused to bond myself out.
    
    Criminally yours,
    Richard
    

    .22  Bob,
    
    	I agree with you.  I, too, believe military decision-makers
    agonize over sending American lives into battle.  Perhaps I
    didn't express myself very well.  I was mostly talking about
    conscience towards our foes.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

  Re : Richard

  Thank you for your act of courage for those who have made the 
  supreme sacrifice. I agree with you that "war at best is a terrible
  solution".  

  I am a third generation American, my father and I both served in times
  of war. I expect my son will also (unless the Lord comes).

  Hank

      Hi,
    
        It occured to me that Jesus allowed 'family' to suffer
        miserably without taking physical measures in order to
        relieve and rescue the suffering.  I'm referring to His
        cousin John the Baptist who toiled in a prison cell and
        was decapitated.
    
        Did Jesus do the right thing or should he have used physical
        measures in order to rescue?
    
        Does this apply to any of us and our families?
    
                                                Tony

  Re .32 Tony 

  Hi Tony,  

  He also made a whip and gave them "what for" when He saw what they 
  (scribes, pharisees, etc) had done to His Father's temple.
 
  Plus "verbal abuse" - you brood of vipers (you bunch of snakes), etc.

  More than once the Angel of The Lord wreaked havoc and destruction
  in the OT account of Our Fathers dealings with mankind.

  The two witnesse of the Book of Revelation, They were family and those 
  who tried to hurt them suffered destruction via fire from heaven, though 
  they made the ultimate sacrifce later (and were resurrected).

  In the Age of Grace (so-called) mercy is the prime operative word,
  but in a situation where grace fails (on our part) then the law
  comes back into play (Examples : Annaias and Saphira; The Corinthian
  Christians who "sleep").

  Tony God is love, but the scripture also says :
  whom I love, I chastise and rebuke...
  and *scourges every* son who He receives.

  The book of Revelation reveals the "wrath of God" the wrath of the God 
  who is love in essence : God is love. but His love includes the destruction 
  of the wicked, what kind of a place would it be if the wicked were here
  to make trouble forever and ever ?

  His longsuffering has finally run out but judgment begins 
  at the House of God. (he who has eyes to see... etc).

  Hank

    Richard:
    
    I commend you for taking a firm stand on what you believe.  My
    confusion was based mainly on your communication some time back
    regarding Bosnia.  If I remember correctly, weren't you of the opinion
    that we couldn't stand idly by while slaughter was going on over
    there.  
    
    I believe that there are times when justice has to be meted out with
    force.  This includes capital punishment and military intervention when
    necessary.  I know this is a sore spot with you and at times with me;
    however, I remind you of the history of Israel, i.e. the judgements God
    placed on them and the campaigns that God commissioned men like Joshua,
    Caleb, Barek, Jephthah, Gideon, David, King Saul, and a myriad of
    others.  It would be an untruth to deny that God doesn't mete out
    justice in this manner from time to time.
    
    Offensive aggression, yes it is wrong.  Defense of Country and National
    interests, no it is not wrong!
    
    -Jack

As I mentioned to someone during the action, in a way I, too, am a warrior.

In a letter attributed to the Apostle Paul, the author speaks about putting
on the whole armor of God.  He talks about truth, righteousness, peace, the
Word, and such.

I report to a different Commander-In-Chief. ;-}

About Bosnia.  Very disturbing.  Very troubling to me.  I've yet to advocate
military intervention, however.

Shalom,
Richard

    Oh, I'm sorry...I wasn't really sure where you stood on that.
    
    Had you been an Israelite in the battle of Jericho, would God the
    Father still have been your commander in chief?  I know it isn't an 
    easy question to answer but I am curious!!
    
    -Jack

    But I'm not an Israelite.  I'm a Christian.  You and I went over a nearly
    identical question to this one in the Epiphany topic a few months back.
    
    Your question is more about my faith in a book than my faith in Christ.
    
    Richard
    

    God the Father was the commander and chief to the Israelites during the
    battle of Jericho.  Let me ask it this way.  Do you believe God the
    Father would never use violence as a means of judging a people or a
    nation?  
    
    -Jack

    I refuse to get caught up in it, Jack.  It's obvious that what I've
    said is outside of your paradigm.
    
    I tried to explain my perspective to you before about Joshua and
    Jericho and either you don't remember what I said or you've chosen
    to disregard it or something.
    
    Be happy that you're so afflicted as I am.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

Richard,

Are you a member of the Seamless Garment Network?

(No War, No Death Penalty, No Abortion, No Euthanasia)

/john

    No, I am not.  It is my understanding that individuals cannot
    join the Seamless Garment Network, that it is open, at least
    primarily, to organizations or collectivities.
    
    From what little I know of the SGN, I am mostly sympathetic
    toward their outlook and efforts, however.
    
    Richard
    

    Addendum to .37:
    
    I looked for Jack's and my previous exchange about Joshua, etc.. in the
    Epiphany topic and it ain't there.  It must be in one of our various
    ratholes.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    re : Note 930.38 by AIMHI::JMARTIN

    > Do you believe God the Father would never use violence as a means of
    > judging a people or a nation?

    Put it this way: I don't think this nation, its military leaders and it
    weapons engineers are operating under the authority and guidance of God
    as their "commander and chief." I think 20th century history of US
    military testing and experimentation bear this out. This is not to say
    that politicians and generals alike won't invoke the name of God as
    their guiding light; I just think their not being honest with
    themselves or with us.

    Eric

    PS I find it interesting that all references to support nationalistic
       military righteousness are from the Old Testament. I don't think
       violence fits into the new covenant.

    Richard:
    
    You couldn't find it in the epiphany topic because you kept giving me
    the same answer back then that you gave me some four replies back.  
    "Jack...I refuse to get caught up on this issue of Joshua..."  Richard
    you have avoided it like the plague and I am convinced you will never 
    answer it.
    
    Eric, you're right.  I use the Old Testament only because it is the
    best historical account of nation rising against nation.  You will not 
    find this in the New Testament because the Israelites were under the
    thumb of the Roman Empire.  I hear what you are saying about violence
    and the new covenant and I agree with it.  I will also say however,
    that the lack of will to defend yourself is probably the most blatent
    form of violence there is.  The UN's lack of desire to arm the croates
    is a testimony to this.  Wholesale slaughter, because the UN has cut
    off a peoples ability to defend themselves.
    
    -Jack

Note 930.44:
    
>    You couldn't find it in the epiphany topic because you kept giving me
>    the same answer back then that you gave me some four replies back.  
>    "Jack...I refuse to get caught up on this issue of Joshua..."  Richard
>    you have avoided it like the plague and I am convinced you will never 
>    answer it.

This is not true.  You may have rejected my response, Jack, which I have
gone to the trouble of recovering and which appears here below.  But your
rejection is entirely another matter.

================================================================================
Note 795.32      I have the correct handle on God and you don't!       32 of 130
CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "On loan from God"                 28 lines  16-DEC-1993 14:51
                              -< For Jack Martin >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, Jack (.18).  I appreciate what you've said.  In fact, I'm downright
humbled by your flattery.  And I'm feeling kind of guilty for coming
on like Rambo.  Forgive me my sin of misunderstanding your motivation,
if that's what I've done.

As an act of good faith, I'll share my thoughts about Joshua.

Joshua, though he shared a Hebrew name in common with Jesus (Jesus is
Aramaic for the Hebrew name Joshua), had one distinct disadvantage
over me (and you for that matter).  Joshua never heard the teachings
of Jesus, never had Jesus' example to follow, never had the benefit of
a Christian community under a new covenant and with a new commandment,
to love one another as Christ loves.

Yes, I believe in Yahweh of Joshua.  At the same time, I also believe
that the Bible provides us with something of a chronology of discovery
and an expanding understanding of the true nature of God.  I believe
Jesus to be the greatest expression of the true nature of God in human
form thus far.  I believe the declaration in the first epistle of John
that God is love to be the supreme and most radically profound revelation
of Godself thus far.

I try to avoid making a judgment of Joshua and his understanding of God.
Had I been in his place, I may very well have done what Joshua did.

Peace,
Richard

    re: Note 930.44 by AIMHI::JMARTIN

    > I will also say however, that the lack of will to defend yourself is
    > probably the most blatent form of violence there is.

    You besmirch the name and memory of every peace loving Christian and
    Jew in history. From those pacifist Christians martyred by the Romans,
    to the Jews who went like lambs to the slaughter of extermination
    camps.

    We cannot fulfill the new covenant by playing by the rules of the old.

    Eric

    PS: At the risk of appearing to be a hypocrite, I'd like to say that I
        would most likely defend the lives and safety of my family through
        violence. I don't know what I'd do if only my life were at stake in
    	a violent confrontation, however. 

re: Note 930.46 by Eric.

>    We cannot fulfill the new covenant by playing by the rules of the old.

Yes!

Peace,

Jim

    Point well taken.
    
    

    I have really enjoyed reading this topic.  Most of my Chrisitan life I
    have been torn between the two sides of this issue.  I think that both
    Jack and Richard have done very well in clearly explaining the two
    views.
    
    Being from an Independant Baptist background my views have always been
    more closely in tune with what Jack has said.  My father also served in
    WWII and instilled that feeling of responsibility in me.  (Jack, your
    story about your father is very similar to my father!  My father always
    used to tell me that he would have probably been killed in Japan if the
    bomb had not been used, which would mean - no me!)  I always had mixed
    feelings about this!  
    
    I attended an independant Christian university and on one of our road
    trips to another Christian (Baptist) college.  I met a very devout
    Mennonite on that trip.  (Don't ask me why a Mennonite was attending a
    Baptist college!)  We got on to this very topic.  One grandmother was a
    Mennonite so his views did interest me.  He was a pacifist and felt
    very strongly about these things.  We tried to convert each other's
    viewpoints  (neither one of us did) and I would have to say that I
    ended up learning a lot from him and the way that he felt.  
    
    He said that we should worship God and serve Him only and let the
    government do what it may.  He said that if the government became
    corrupt and turned against Christians that they could not stop them
    from serving God with their hearts.  They basically did not care who
    was in power because in reality that God was in control.  If it meant
    dieing at the hands of the government - then so be it.  These ideas at
    first left me frustrated and confused.  One thing I did do however, was
    see his point.  What really frustrated me was the unresolved wondering
    whether "he had more faith than I did", or was "a lot more unrealistic
    than I was".  Perhaps both, perhaps neither one.  I don't mean to
    overly simplify the conversation that lasted almost 7 hours as it was
    certainly a lot more complex that I have described.  But it made me
    think.
    
    Shortly thereafter I read about a group of Amish people in the state of
    Iowa.  The Iowa government was trying to force them to use certified
    school teachers instead of their own teachers who only had 8th grade
    educations.  When they saw the authorities comming the doors of the one
    room schoolhouse were opened and all the Amish children ran out into
    the cornfields to hide.  This happened time and time again - until the
    authorities gave up.  A very low-tech solution to be sure but it seemed
    to work.  It struck me as funny because they won the "war" by running
    in the other direction and hiding instead of confronting the opposing
    side.  In their humility they ran, and won the war.  This example still
    makes me laugh.  I know that the world is not that simple but it helped
    me realize that *sometimes* there are alternatives to outright
    confrontation.
    
    All in all, I wish that I weren't such a fence sitter on this issue. 
    If I were forced to choose I think that I would probably agree with
    Jack the most because the world ain't perfect and not all wars are
    necessarily spiritual.  However, I do hope that God will always give me
    the wisdom to know whether it best to stand my ground and fight or run
    like mad in the other direction - as long as the strategy wins!
    
    Again, thanks Jack and Richard - you've both done a splendid job!
    
    Rob

    One theme I've heard expressed more than once by WWII vets of the D-Day
    invasion, is that war is devastating and should be avoided as all
    costs. One old vet said that opposing leaders should "sit down with a
    box a cigars and talk it out, cause it [war] just ain't worth it".

    Eric

We hear much rhetoric about sacrificing one's life for the sake
of freedom, democracy and other high-minded sounding ideals.

Jesus said there is no greater love than....well, you know the rest.  But
the purpose of war is *not* to lay down your life for your country.  It is
to make the other guy lay down his life for his country.  (Paraphrasing
Patton here)

As a Christian, I believe there are indeed some things worth dying for.  I
have a much more difficult time coming up with something worth killing for.
I see Jesus' teachings and example as confirming this way of thinking.

Shalom,
Richard

    Fully realizing we are no longer under the law but under grace, I feel
    the need to point this out and use this scripture as a valid christian
    argument for the death penalty.
    
    "If a man takes the life of another that same man's life shall be
    taken.  His blood shall be on his own head."  Reference ?
    
    I believe when an aggressor takes the life of another and is killed
    doing it, he faces God as a murderer of two individuals...his victim
    and himself.  I believe the defender is exonerated (sp) on this issue.
    
    Richard, I understand your heart on this matter.  Keep in mind that
    when a nation is truly an aggressor and is defeated, (as was Germany in
    WW2, then they really have nobody to blame but themselves.)  I do agree
    with you that the military used in an irresponsible fashion, such as
    political gain, is an abomination to God.  
    
    Peace,
    
    -Jack  

    Well, Jack, it may be of some comfort to know that your view is shared
    with perhaps a majority of persons, secular and otherwise.
    
    Capital punishment is another topic, but there are connections with
    the martial.  Capital punishment is essentially just another military
    solution.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

re:  Note 930.50 by Eric

>    One theme I've heard expressed more than once by WWII vets of the D-Day
>    invasion, is that war is devastating and should be avoided as all
>    costs. 

Speaking of costs, how much of the U.S. budget is earmarked for being able to 
wage war?  How much is earmarked for being able to wage peace?  It's easy to 
say that sanctions will not work.  Does that prove that war or the threat of 
war is necessary?  How much is the U.S. spending for alternatives to war? 
Perhaps war is so effective because we've spent so much time, energy, and
money on it...we've really gotten good at it.  I wonder if we could get as
good at alternatives, but would the lobbyists allow that? Would the military
allow it?  Would the politicians allow it?

Peace,

Jim

    The only accomplishment of sanctions is to starve the commoners.
    
    A bomb dropped precisely down the chimney duct of a defense ministry
    building is a very good persuader.  Ideally no civilians get hurt.
    
    -Jack

    Your true religion is showing, Jack.
    
    Richard
    

re: Note 930.55 by Jack

>    The only accomplishment of sanctions is to starve the commoners.
    
I've heard it said that no country is more than 9 meals away from revolution.
That is, if the commoners go for three days without food, they generally start 
to rebel.  Perhaps that is the thinking behind sanctions, to induce the
populace to rebel, perhaps to instigate them to fight their own war.  (Maybe
with super power nations to egg them on by supplying armaments.) 

Just musing...

Jim

    RE:  Note 930.55 by AIMHI::JMARTIN
    
    Ideally we would follow the example of Christ and not blow up anybody. 
    
    The proposition that death and destruction is our preferred response to
    those who perpetrate death and destriction is sad. 
    
    Eric
    

    .58
    
    In school my son was picked on a by a bully.  This bully would take
    every chance he had to pick a fight with Matthew.  Matthew is passive,
    not aggressive... he doesn't like to fight and furthermore deplores it. 
    Then after 3 years of harrassment by same bully, Matthew beat the fire
    out of him and had to have 3 "big" kids pull him off.
    
    Said bully is very cautious today and quite frankly tiptoes around
    Matthew and shows him some respect.
    
    Seems that the same treatment that Matthew got redirected took care of
    the problem.

    Could you cite for us which of Jesus' teachings Matthew was obeying?
    
    Or is this teaching from the Gospel according to St. Dirty Harry?
    
    Richard
    

re; Note 930.59 by Nancy "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" 

>    Seems that the same treatment that Matthew got redirected took care of
>    the problem.

So the solution is mutual fear?  *sigh*

Peace,

Jim

 re .60




 Hmmmm..my guess is you would say that Matthew should not have responded to the
 abuse of a bully?  Would you extend the same advice to say, a woman who is 
 being harrassed/abused? Turn the other cheek and allow the abuse to continue?
 to what extent?


 Also, could you cite for us the teaching of Jesus you were obeying in .0?  



 Jim

1. No, I wouldn't say that Matthew shouldn't have responded to the bully.

2. You're asking me to spell it out for you?

Richard

 1.  How should Matthew have handled it?  Having met the young man and 
     been extremely impressed with his level of maturity for a (then) 10
     year old boy, I'd say that he had to have been pushed rather far.  


 2.  Sure, why not...I know that Peter tells us to obey the laws of 
     the land, but since Peter didn't write Peter (as some assert) I'm 
     sure its not considered valid.  I'm not sure where Jesus tells his
     disciples to engage in law breaking.




 Jim

    re .59

    My son did a similar thing and received two detentions. It was on
    school grounds, technically, and he didn't wait three years. The
    principal suggested that in the future my son should come to him if
    he's having a problem with a bully.

    Eric
    
    PS. Nancy, I don't understand what your reference was to my .58. 

    re .64

    Are you suggesting that if you lived in Soviet Russia you would have
    forsaken your religion because it was the law of the land? 

    I couldn't find anything in Peter about obeying the law of the land,
    but I did find this:

    1 Pet 3:9  Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but
    contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye
    should inherit a blessing.

    and this...
    
    Mat 5:38  Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and
    a tooth for a tooth:
    Mat 5:39  But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever
    shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
    
    and this...
    
    Mat 5:44  But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse
    you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which
    despitefully use you, and persecute you;
    
    Eric

    Re. .59 
    
    Nancy,  When I read .59 for some reason the incident of Jesus' wrath in
    the cleansing of the Temple came to mind.  He (Jesus) probably saw what
    was going on and put up with it for years before a few tables got
    overturned!  Your son seems like a very *VERY* patient person.  He
    probably just reached the time whereby enough was enough and he
    methphorically "cleansed his own temple."  I'm sure that the money
    changers in the temple were tiptoeing around for awhile too!
    
    Rob
    

    re: Note 930.67 by SNOC02::LINCOLNR

    >  -< Time To Act >-

    There is also a way to act and a reason for action. I don't know how
    many people Jesus "beat the fire" out of. I don't know how many people
    it took to pull Jesus off one of the moneychangers. John does say that
    Jesus made a whip out of a cord and "drove" them all out of the temple,
    but I don't think this means he pinned them to the wall and whipped
    them to the point of being restrained. 

    Look, I'm not picking on Nancy or her son. I am talking about the
    actions and not the participants. I am not picking on Matthew Morales.
    I have no doubt that Matthew is a fine young man.

    Eric

    Jesus broke numerous Jewish laws, particularly Sabbath laws,
    which many probably don't consider as legitimate as modern
    man-ordained, governmentally-enforced laws.
    
    Peter, Paul and some of the other apostles evidently went against
    the desires of earthly authorities, too.  If they'd never stuck their
    necks out, they'd not have met with untimely ends.
    
    The way you've chosen to ask me (.64) tells me that you lack sincerity
    and receptivity concerning your questions.  I shall not waste your
    time or mine.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    .68
    
    You're on target, Eric.
    
    The moneychangers were gouging the people.  Doubtlessly, Jesus used
    the whip to drive out the larger animals sold at the Temple for
    sacrificial purposes.
    
    The gospel doesn't say Jesus ever used the whip he made on any person.
    
    FWIW, school yard spats can sometimes lead to best friends.  Kids are
    often more resilient and willing to forgive than their more "mature"
    counterparts.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

>    Jesus broke numerous Jewish laws, particularly Sabbath laws,

Not true.

/john

    Mark 2.23-3.6
    (Matthew 12.1-9, Luke 6.1-11)

    Certainly, Jesus was *perceived* as defying the law.  Jesus had
    some pretty revolutionary ideas about what was clean and what
    was unclean, too, in contrast to the legalisms of the culture.
    
    Richard
    

   .71



    I take it, then, you haven't a better solution for Matthew's dilemma?

RE:                       <<< Note 930.66 by HURON::MYERS >>>
                -< Jesus leaves no room for violent vengeance >-

   
   > Are you suggesting that if you lived in Soviet Russia you would have
   > forsaken your religion because it was the law of the land? 


     No...



   > I couldn't find anything in Peter about obeying the law of the land,
   > but I did find this:


     1 Peter 2:17 ( I believe)



 Jim

    I can't help but chuckle as I read the onslaught here.
    
    Thanks Jimbo for your characterization of Matthew.  
    
    First off, the question of when to fight and when not to fight seems to
    me to be an age old question.....
    
    Have you ever had righteous anger?  Ever feel that?  Ever think you've
    been wronged?  I believe that righteous anger takes no vengeance, but I
    also don't believe that means one is to make themselves available for
    abuse.
    
    Put on the Whole Armor of God... comes to mind.  If Matthew cannot
    fight the little wars, how can he be expected to fight the bigger ones
    that comes along.
    
    I believe that God expects us to be good soldiers.  But in spiritual
    warfare... 
    
    Matthew's small battle on the basketball court is helping him to build
    the character to stand up for what he believes, when the big battle
    comes, as it will in his lifetime.
    
    The parallel is simple, if your only open minded enough to see it.
    

re .74

What law did Jesus and his disciples break?  Quote chapter and verse
of the law.

/john

    For some reason, over the weekend, I was thinking about the country of
    Sweden in regard to this note.  Sweden is one of the most heavily armed
    countries in Europe.  They are also a fiercely neutral country.  They
    haven't been in a single war for centuries because everyone is afraid
    of them!  I'm not sure how this fits in but there it is!
    ;-)
    Rob
    

re: Note 930.77 by Nancy "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" 

>    Thanks Jimbo for your characterization of Matthew.  

My name is not "Jimbo", but you knew that.

Exactly where in my reply did I characterize your son?  
Please provide quotes.

Jim    

RE:                <<< Note 930.80 by TFH::KIRK "a simple song" >>>
                    -< name calling does not suit you well >-

>re: Note 930.77 by Nancy "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" 

>>    Thanks Jimbo for your characterization of Matthew.  

>My name is not "Jimbo", but you knew that.


 Uh your name may not be "Jimbo", however Nancy does refer to me (my name
 is Jim also) as such.


>Exactly where in my reply did I characterize your son?  
>Please provide quotes.


 I suspect that Nancy was refering to my .64.



Jim

re: Note 930.81 by Jim "Friend will you be ready?" 

> Uh your name may not be "Jimbo", however Nancy does refer to me (my name
> is Jim also) as such.

I am not you.  My rule of thumb is to include a noter's personal name in my 
"re:" line, (this differentiates between people with the same name), and to 
address noters in the same manner in which they sign their notes.  When no 
signature is given, I refer to the node::name.  I've gone over this before.
I think this is a reasonable etiquette.

> I suspect that Nancy was refering to my .64.

That might explain it.  Thanks.

Peace,

Jim

RE 930.76 CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend will you be ready?"

Thanks for the pointer to Peter. But given your answer to my question 
regarding the former Soviet Union, I'm not sure what your point is.

Eric

    .77 Notice what "weapons" are advised in the "Armor of God."  Notice
    also a few verses earlier about the battle being not against flesh and
    blood.
    
    Richard
    

    .78  Whether Jesus defied any Mosaic law or not, I'll not
    argue.  But the gospels make it clear that Jesus' culture
    considered him to have been in violation, as is sufficiently
    pointed out in the portions I cited.  Good enough?
    
    Richard
    

    .84
    
    Agreed.

   .75

>    I take it, then, you haven't a better solution for Matthew's dilemma?

Oh, come, now.  For you to say this would be as aburd as me saying you are
unable to think of any better solution than slugging it out.

Richard

    .79  Interesting point about Sweden.  You might also consider the
    posture of Costa Rica, a country for years without a military beyond
    an emergency response unit roughly equivalent to the National Guard.
    
    Richard
    

It's not clear that his culture considered him to have violated anything.

The Pharisees were only part of that culture.

/john

    Richard,
    
    The reason I posed the issue about Sweden was that I was wondering what
    you thought about that particular situation.  My Mennonite friend told
    me that he did not support any military organisations for any reason
    because it didn't matter to him whether the government in power was
    supportive/oppressive to Christian people - he would serve God
    regardless.  
    
    The Swedish question is interesting because they are one of the few
    countries that use their power responsibly.  They don't attack other
    nations - and deplore it when it happens.  They also don't want
    assistance if they are attacked as they feel it is their responsiblity
    to take care of themselves.  The Swedes I know frown upon the U.S. for
    getting involved in the affairs of other countries, thinking that they
    somehow have that right - when they don't.  Switzerland has a similar
    viewpoint.  
    
    I am genuinely interested in what you think about the Swedish/Swiss
    philosophy as I personally would be interested in your viewpoint.  As I
    said before the verdict is still out for me.  I have been struggling
    with this one for years.  I was just wondering if you think that
    non-agressive militarisation is OK, or if you feel that countries would
    be better off without miliary organisations at all.  I want to learn
    from your perspective - and when I ask someone a question it means that
    I am genuinely interested in their thoughts and not trying to trick
    them into saying something that I can use to attack them with later. 
    
    I'm in here to learn and get other people's slant on things and I am
    pleased to say that I am learning a lot from everyone in here whether I
    agree with them or not isn't important.  What is important is that I
    understand where other people are comming from so I can at least
    understand their viewpoint in an informed and intellegent manner.  I
    personally think that most wars (both personal and national) are the
    result of a lack of knowledge and respect for other people's
    perspectives.  
    
    Rob

    .89  Neither is everyone in my culture in disagreement with me.
    
    Richard
    

    .90  I working on something now that may answer some of the issues
    you raise.  I should have in ready before July 5th.  I'll get back
    to you.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

Follows reading of Scripture:  Ephesians 6.10-20

What truly stirring martial rhetoric!  The author of our letter offers up a
challenge to stand fast against the most formidable of foes.  And in doing
so, the author employs the ancient and enduring imagery of battle between
good and evil: the faithful one -- the righteous one -- engaging the very
forces of darkness in mortal combat.  So powerful and so enduring is this
imagery that even now, nearly 2000 years later, it is a frequent theme of
movie and television scripts.

Today, I'm wearing one of my favorite Christian emblems: It's called a
Jerusalem cross.  The Jerusalem cross was emblazoned upon the shields
of many of the Crusaders of the Middle Ages.  Unfortunately, the Crusaders
misunderstood what it really means to be a Crusader.  You see, the word
crusader means "cross bearer."  A crusader then, according to the teachings
and example of Jesus, is one who voluntarily and sacrificially takes up
the cross, not one who wields the cross as a weapon against others.

This evening, I want to explore some of our more common notions about
peace.  I say *some* because, indeed, we cannot possibly do more than skim
the surface given the brief time with which we have to work.

We really need to examine what we mean by peace.  You see, typically we
have a hard time describing what peace is.  We tend to describe it more
in terms of absence, as if peace was a zero marker on some scale of
escalating conflict and violence.

Even those of us who are considered peace activists perpetuate this way
of thinking by speaking in terms of 'non-violence' and 'non-threatening'
situations.

I don't know about others, but I find this woefully inadequate.  I mean,
how satisfactory would it be for us to define a woman as simply an 'adult
non-man'?  Or a man as an 'adult non-woman?'

Interestingly, peace isn't the only thing we tend to describe in negative
terms.  Ask around sometime what people mean by 'sanity.'  If your experience
matches mine, you'll hear more about what sanity isn't than what sanity is.

We tend to think of peace as something that just happens by itself once
we're not at war.  But this is as absurd as believing that once you're
married you no longer have to work at your relationship with your spouse,
that it's something that just happens by itself.  My brother once confessed
to me that he really thought this way.  My brother has been married 4 times.
Need I say more?

Can peace be accurately described as the absence of conflict?

Well, just for a moment, let's imagine overlooking a world in the aftermath
of total nuclear war.   Having been bathed in an ocean of destruction, we
would see the Earth being swept by the swirling winds of radio-active debris.
We would likely observe a planet conspicuously absent of conflict.  But would
we call this "peace"?

What about situations where peace is enforced through squelching prophetic
voices, suppressing the cries of injustice and prohibiting expressions of
discontent?  Would we call it "peace" when dissent is silenced through
coercion or fear?

We can "pacify" people by giving them drugs, manipulating them with
propaganda, keeping them illiterate and uninformed, or by terrorizing them.
But would we call this "peace"?  Much of what passes for peace is actually
"war-in-the-making."

Contrary to the notion of peace as absence, permit me to suggest that conflict
is actually a very vital part of life, an important part of life, and one
from which we should not try to withdraw.  At least, not habitually.

You know, this brings to mind a very common misconception -- the notion that
all pacifists are passive.  The truth is that peace can be acutely afflicting
to the receptive heart, prompting one into confrontation rather than avoidance.

As some of you know, on Memorial Day of this year, I entered Falcon Air
Force Base east of Colorado Springs to witness in prayer on behalf of all
who have died or will die, and on behalf of all who have suffered or will
suffer, as a result of the use of deadly force through war.  (For those
wish to know more about this action, I would invite you to read the interview
in .0 of this string)

I was not welcomed with open arms.  In fact, I was not welcomed at all.  I'm
certain they wished I'd just go away and acquiesce to the status quo, or, at
least, to find some less troublesome way to make a statement.

During the lengthy standoff at the entrance, I was barred bodily by an
armed security guard from further penetrating the base.  Because we
were on the main driveway, I kept checking behind me for oncoming traffic.
The guard before me, whose name was Quinn, advised me that as long as he
was there he would make certain that no harm would come to me.  I said,
"Thank you," and then I added that as long as I was there I'd make certain
that no harm would come to him.  He grinned at me and said, "Thank you."

It's been said that nobody hates war like a warrior, and I believe it.  Where
the militarist and I disagree is in our presuppositions.  The militarist
believes pacifism is naive, impractical and even irresponsible.  The
militarist refuses to discard the option of what might be considered
"a lesser evil".  But the real difference between the militarist and me is
that I would do first what the militarist would do last: that is to say,
"No!" to waging war against flesh and blood.

According to the Gospel of John, Jesus said, "Greater love hath no man
than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."  We speak in
terms of sacrificing one's life for the sake of liberty, for the sake
of God and country.  But the purpose of engaging in war is not to sacrifice
one's life.  The purpose of war -- and I'm paraphrasing the brutal honesty
of General George Patton here -- the purpose of war is to make the poor
bastard on the other side sacrifice *his* life.

Contrary to the notion of peace as absence, permit me to suggest that peace
is something that must be waged with all the ferocity, with all the fortitude,
and with all the discipline that is expected of warriors fully prepared for
war.  As Christians, we're asked to take up the instruments of our battle:
truth, righteousness, the message of peace, salvation, faith, and the word
God's Spirit gives to us.  As Scripture says, our battle is not against human
beings, but against the darkness that seems to dwell perennially in high places.

Permit me one final suggestion; that is, that peace is not a destination, but
a path.  Peace is not a goal, but a journey.  In the words of A.J. Muste,
"There is no way to peace.  Peace is the way."

Interestingly, this ties into something that's brought out in the Scriptures.
Jesus said, "I am the Way."  The earliest Christians were not called
Christians, but people of the Way, or followers of the Way.

There is no way to peace.  Peace is the way.

    
    >Interestingly, this ties into something that's brought out in the
    >Scriptures.
    >Jesus said, "I am the Way."  The earliest Christians were not called
    >Christians, but people of the Way, or followers of the Way.
    
    Er, uh, where in the world do you get this?  Acts says they were first
    called Christians in Antioch.  Now before this, I don't recollect
    scripture giving a group name for followers of Christ.  Could you point
    it out to me?
    
    Also, just what is pacifism to you?  And what is a Pacificst Activist? 
    Are you one?  
    

re .94

The Way:	Acts 9:2, 18:25-26, 19:9,23, 22:4, 24:14,22
Christian(s):	Acts 11:26, 26:28, 1 Peter 4:16.

    Acts 9:2  And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues,
    that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might
    bring them bound unto Jerusalem.
    
    
    this way = like that
    
    Acts 18:25  This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being
    fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord,
    knowing only the baptism of John.
     26  And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila
    and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him
    the way of God more perfectly.
                                                                                
    Could you show me the way you make those brownies?
                      ^^^^^^^    
    
    Acts 24:14  But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they
    call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which
    are written in the law and in the prophets:
    
     22  And when Felix heard these things, having more perfect knowledge
    of that way, he deferred them, and said, When Lysias the chief captain shall
    comedown, I will know the uttermost of your matter.
    
    Again it's using that way, to mean those people who were "like that".
                     ^^^^^^^^                                 ^^^^^^^^^
    
    "Christian" was what the FIRST name given to the followers of Christ.
    Jesus was THE WAY, THE TRUTH and THE LIFE... his followers were never
    referred to as the way... I think it's stretching it a bit, imho.
    
    Only in this instance is it a Pronoun.  
    

Keep going, Nancy, look at all of the references.  It's even clear from
the KJV that Christianity was called "The Way" before it was called
Christianity.

And then consider looking at the NIV, or any other translation.

/john

    I looked at all the scriptures.  I still don't see them being referred
    to as "the way", sorry I don't trust any translation other than KJV.
    
    If you are forming your opinion on the NIV, I trust it even less and
    imho there is less foundation on which to form your thought pattern.
    
    

    I understand the matter just as John Covert indicated in .97.  And
    I've noticed over time that John has a knack for meticulous detail.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Well, when two agree. :-) :-)
    
    I don't see it, I think it's a stretch, but hey Jesus did call himself
    the way, the truth and the life
    
    I wonder why they didn't just call themselves Truthers of Lifers???
    
    

Well, Nancy, I don't own an NIV; but that doesn't matter.  The KJV is
clear, and the RSV is even more clear.  The NEB actually goes so far
as to change the Acts 19:23 use of "the way" to "the Christian movement."

You should do a study on the evolution of the English language and the
usage of "that" and "the".  You should also check out the relationship
of the KJV and Martin Luther's German translation.

I noticed in .96 you said something about a "Pronoun".  Why did you
use the word "Pronoun?"  In all instances in the KJV quotes I provided,
"Way" is a noun.

/john

    Way - pronoun referring to CHRIST himself.

    Oh btw, see .100 but if you feel that getting the LAST word in makes
    you a winner... then, let's CROWN you King for the DAY! :-) :-)
    
    Peace John,
    Nancy

Note 930.100

>    I wonder why they didn't just call themselves Truthers of Lifers???
    
The first generation Quakers were sometimes referred to as the Publishers
of Truth or the Children of the Truth.

The main point in my message is that process is imperitive, superceding
even the outcome.                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Peace,
Richard

On Memorial Day of this year, I entered Falcon Air Force Base east of
Colorado Springs.  I had come to pray in remembrance of all who've ever
suffered or had their lives ripped away from them through war.  I had
come to pray on behalf of all who will suffer or will have their lives
ripped away from them in some future act of war.

I was not welcomed with open arms.  In fact, was not welcomed at all.
I'm fairly certain at least some of the base officials wished I would
just go away and acquiesce to the status quo or, at least, that I would
find some less troublesome way to take a stand or to seek change.  And
because I happen to be a quadriplegic, I'm certain any anxiety over my
presence was amplified.

Because a number of people have asked about my well-being and about the
outcome of this action, I've consented to share a portion of my experience
and observations.

During the lengthy standoff at the main entrance at Falcon, I was barred
bodily by an armed security guard from penetrating the base any farther.
Because I kept spinning my wheelchair around and checking behind me for
oncoming traffic, the guard advised me that he was there to make certain
that no harm came to me.  I thanked him.  And then I added that I, too,
was there to make certain that no harm would come to him.  The young soldier
grinned at me an agreeable grin and said, "Thank you."

I recall becoming a bit worried in the ensuing hours -- not for myself, but
for the Eidson baby, who I knew was enduring the same baking sun a hundred
or so yards away.  The baby's parents were two of the more than dozen
supporters who gathered just beyond the fence delineating Falcon Air Force
Base from the rest of the world.  I am deeply grateful for each of these
and for their expressions of solidarity.  And I know I was in the thoughts
and prayers of many others who could not be there in person.  It came as
a relief to me to learn sometime later that the Eidson baby was just fine.

Nearly three hours after my arrival, I was placed under arrest by an El
Paso county sheriff's deputy on the charge of 2nd degree criminal trespass
(a 3rd class misdemeanor) and transported via wheelchair ambulance to the
local jail, euphemistically called the Criminal Justice Center.

I was confined to the jail infirmary.  But it soon became apparent that
the facility wasn't staffed or equipped to handle someone of my physical
limitations.  My cellmate had to be the one to press the hospital call button
for me if needed, as it was up on the wall out of my reach.  Dressing me in
one of the standard-issue jail jumpsuits was determined to be more difficult
than it was worth.  I could not transfer to a toilet.

The next day I appeared in court in an open-backed hospital gown with a
blanket over my lap and legs and little plastic booties on my feet.

This was TV court.  In a chapel-like room off a jail corridor, there's a
television monitor about where an altar might be.  The judge appears on
this TV (and it isn't Wapner) via two-way closed-circuit video and audio
technology.

When my name was called, a public defender, an attractive, well-dressed
young woman, joined me at my side in preparation to advise me or to act
on my behalf.  After having me respond to the routine questions, the judge
said he was releasing me on a $100 bond.  I advised the judge I would
refuse to sign a bond.  This threw the public defender off balance.
Immediately, she started questioning me.  "What's wrong?  Don't you
have any place to go?  Is there someone on the outside out to get you?"

The judge asked me why I refused.  I told him that I believed my word
should be sufficient, that I shouldn't need to sign a bond.  This again
destabilized the public defender.  "What makes you think you're somehow
better than the other inmates?"  Before I had the chance to explain my
position to her, the judge indicated he would accept my word and that he
would sign a bench release.

I was released at about 7:00 pm that evening.  Upon exiting the facility,
my wife, Sharon, and I were greeted in the parking lot by a beautiful double
rainbow.  Sharon believed it to be a sign.  I'm not so sure, but I appreciated
it and thanked God anyway.

I'm due to appear in court for a pre-trial conference on August 5th.

Keep me in your prayers!!

    
    
    
     I disagree with your position but I respect the guts it takes to stand
    and deliver....
    
    David